Attorney general’s rave attack unfounded
by Brian Shults, se news editor

    The U.S. Attorney General’s Office has decided to forego its recommended dose of reality and lucid application of the law in favor of an imperious stance against drug use at raves.

    Maybe it’s the pollution, maybe it’s the arsenic in the drinking water or possibly it’s an intoxication of power. Whatever the cause of the mental lapse, logic has taken a callous beating.

    The U.S. attorney’s office, headed by John Ashcroft, is equating raves—electronic dance parties—with crack houses and attempted to prosecute three New Orleans rave promoters under the 1986 crack house law. The defendants, James D. Estopinal, Brian Brunet and Robert Brunet, faced up to 20 years in prison and $500,000 in fines for essentially organizing a concert at the State Palace Theater in New Orleans, a place that caters to fans of electronic music, an emerging sub-culture among today’s youth. And that makes mainstream America very uncomfortable.

    To avoid the stiff sentences and fines, the defendants chose to plea bargain, which, in part, stipulated that the State Palace must ban glow sticks, pacifiers and Vicks Vapor Rub in order to stay in operation. Prosecutors claim these objects are “drug paraphernalia” because they are used to enhance the high of ecstasy, a popular designer drug.

    Enforcing the bans entailed that all attendees be subjected to a search upon entry to verify that they are not in possession of these materials. The assumption that these innocuous materials cause or encourage the use of ecstasy is guilty of post hoc fallacy, shaky logic and a peculiar sense of correlation.

    In response to the affront, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) championed the promoters’ cause, comparing the prosecutor’s actions to a restriction of speech and subsequent regulation against attendees as a violation of a citizen’s constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures.

    The crack house law used to indict the defendants was initially developed to penalize manufacturers, owners and operators of houses used to distribute illegal drugs, not concert promoters. Congress rightfully enacted the bill in ’86 to curtail the escalating use of crack, the bane of urban cities during the ’80s.

    More recently, Congress passed the Ecstasy Anti-Proliferation Act with similar intentions and explicitly rejected a provision allowing law enforcement to apply the crack house law to raves.

    The reasoning behind their decision is simple. Arresting rave promoters for what others may do at their events is a gross subversion of the law; if officials suspect illegal pandering of drugs by party organizers or attendees, they must adhere to the normal channels of the justice system and meet its burden of proof. Anything else would be unconstitutional.

    Judicial activism, the liberal interpretation of laws by the judiciary to decide court cases, is an issue that Ashcroft is openly against; however, it seems his office is not reluctant to employ it when it suits their agenda.

    The association of a crack house to a rave is erroneous, primarily because the sole intention of a crack house is to distribute drugs while a rave’s purpose is a celebration of electronic music and dancing. The correlation also puts undue emphasis on the physical building, or place where the rave occurs. Is the reason for the drug use the building or the individual’s responsibility to choose whether to take drugs?

    The idea that guilt centers on the object rather than the person is in stark contrast to another of Ashcroft’s views regarding gun control, as displayed in the maxim held by gun-rights advocates saying, “Guns don’t kill people; people kill people.”

    Hypocrisy should never be tolerated especially when concerning the chief law enforcer of America, which is precisely why the ACLU chose to sue the U.S. Attorney General’s Office and won.

    A New Orleans federal judge issued a preliminary injunction Aug. 23 to temporarily lift the ban on items like glow sticks and pacifiers, preceding future court hearings. The victory is a small one and chiefly hinges on whether Ashcroft will appeal.

    Education and activism are the bedrock of preserving civil liberties. For more information regarding this case and others like it, visit the Electronic Music Defense and Education Fund at www.emdef.org or the ACLU at www.aclu.org.